Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
PrinzAlbatross

Could a major citadel rework be viable?

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

33
[KTKM]
Beta Testers
82 posts
7,583 battles


This is a copy/paste of an article I just posted on the WoWs subreddit, so sorry for that, but I'm interested in getting some feedback form multiple communities. Here it is:



 



Recently, there has been a very large amount of discussion on citadels and the impact they have on the game's meta.



 



Battleships are often too afraid of taking large amounts of damage by showing their sides, so they have adopted a largely bow on play style that largely slows down gameplay. Similarly, cruisers are often written of as bad or mediocre solely on the ease with which their citadel can be penetrated leading to being outright sunk immediately or so severely damaged that they can't be aggressive without risking being sunk. Cruisers that don't suffer so severely from this problem are still played very cautiously to prevent taking heavy damage in short amounts of time.



 



Some measures have been taken to increase aggressiveness of players, such as the release of German battleships that are very difficult to citadel, the economy re-balance, and to a lesser extent the upcoming removal of stealth firing ability and shuffling of firing ranges. Truthfully, in my opinion, nothing WG has changed recently has had any notable effect on passivity, in fact I'd say that some of their decisions have even gone as far as to encourage more passive play.



 



I've pondered several ways to foster and encourage a more fluid playstyle amongst the playerbase, and while I can't offer any foolproof suggestions, I still would like to offer some suggestions, knowing full well the near impossibility of them ever being considered, let alone implemented. I must also admit that this has been inspired by a remark made by the now retired CC, Business6. My various ideas are as follows:





  • Completely remove the citadel and completely rework how damage from heavy hits is calculated. This is probably the most drastic change that would require an overhaul of the entire game. It would also hinder part of the "national flavor" of German battleships, which wouldn't bother me personally because I'm not a big fan of the national flavor system when it leads to ludicrous mechanics and make whole lines overall weaker (i.e. RN CL acceleration, IJN and KM DDs).




  • Simply lower the amount of damage a citadel does to a more reasonable amount. 20-30k salvos that can one shot a cruiser can be frustrating, but cut that amount down by 25 or 30 percent and, while still being a heavy hit, can still be less frustrating than instant death. Also increase the percentage of damage regular pens and non-pens can do to prevent meager gains from these hits. For example, in stead of a single Yamato shell dealing a full 14,800 damage from a citadel hit, a 30% decrease would lead to a 10,360 citadel hit, but regular pen and over-pen damage could be increased to keep it around its current amounts of 4,884 and 1,480 respectively. Overall, this would serve to decrease the disparity between regular damage and heavy damage, but could benefit the game in the long run.




  • Change what effects that damage to the citadel has on the vessel. Citadels housed vital areas of the ship to include machinery and ammunition storage spaces. With that in mind, hits to these areas could serve to increase loading time on main battery and secondary guns without incapacitating the guns outright, or cause a speed or steering penalty without completely knocking them out. This could be a good opportunity to introduce new mechanics, consumables, upgrades, and even increase possibilities of "national flavors" that can be introduced. This is also very complex and would be very taxing to create the mechanics and model them on all the ships, but I would really like to see this implemented.




 



As I said, these are all very rough ideas and are all in need of refining and critiquing, but I just wanted to go ahead and get it out there for whoever is interested. I don't mind if you guys want to comment with critiques, I'm well aware that they all have issues in one way or another, but I'd really like to know what everyone thinks.



Thanks for reading!



  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,097
[KNMSU]
Members
7,086 posts
7,766 battles

The citadel represents a "critical strike" and has its foundations in both WGing looking to introduce a large alpha potential, and a manner with which to punish players for "bad play" (at least within the confines of how WoWs gauges playstyles), as well as a desire by designers to induce/speed up collapses by rendering exposed salients nullified.

 

I personally find the entire citadel concept relatively ludicrous - battleships generally sank (or were rendered hors de combat) via one of three means:

  1. A shell/bomb found its way into a magazine, causing either a direct explosion or a chain reaction of explosions that destroyed the ship.
  2. Hull damage - typically caused by torpedoes, though there were rare instances of dreadnoughts flooding out simply from heavy damage (see SMS Lutzow) - leading to uncontrolled water intake and the ship either becoming unsailable (stern rising out of the water, etc.), or rolling over and taking the plunge. 
  3. Battle damage attrition left the vessel an unfightable, floating wreck (see Bismarck). 

 

Otherwise, a hit was a hit. It could damage personnel particularly grievously (a shell explodes in a med bay or some-such), materiel (it takes out a turret, causes the helm to jam, etc.), or explode in a rather non-vital area. It always represented damage, but unless it was the shot from the golden gun, it didn't cause the vessel to suddenly lose half its fighting potential. In fact, citadel hits are really just a symptom of an overall disease - the desire to assign RPG-style 'health pools' to a boat, in much the same way a wizard might have a finite amount of mana, or a rogue a certain amount of HP that can be expended before he dies.

 

Rather, I would propose that ships in WoWs should suffer a gradually-unfolding level of modules damage far exceeding present mechanics, where (if not main turret, then secondary batteries) damage sustained erodes their fighting value and causes (in some cases) flooding, prompting the warship to heel, ride lower in the water, slow down, reload more slowly, and ultimately capsize. The entire idea of "health" for an inanimate object is sheer silliness. This would have the secondary effect of dramatically reducing torpedo spam since, as even single torpedoes were often fatal, the idea of a "skill wall" is an anathema to a game built around module attrition.

 

*Edit* I wanted to mention that many other games - including arcade-y titles like the Battlestations Pacific releases - have had damage control systems that were far more complex (and, IMO, more fun) than WoWs by forcing players to make crew choices (about whether to fight fires or flooding, make repairs, or man battlestations) that far better conceptualized how warships fight and die. 

Edited by IJN_Hyuga
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,654
[-K-]
Members
8,489 posts
14,853 battles

Great ideas.......most of which make me want to see some kind of 'Sandbox' mode implemented in WOWs to try these types of things out, just like they do with WoT.

 

Business6 also mentioned the notion of outright removing citadels from the game and reworking damage accumulation in a more linear way, as opposed to the spiky damage that citadel penetrations create.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,149
[HINON]
Privateers
6,266 posts
3,308 battles

The citadel represents a "critical strike" and has its foundations in both WGing looking to introduce a large alpha potential, and a manner with which to punish players for "bad play" (at least within the confines of how WoWs gauges playstyles), as well as a desire by designers to induce/speed up collapses by rendering exposed salients nullified.

 

I personally find the entire citadel concept relatively ludicrous - battleships generally sank (or were rendered hors de combat) via one of three means:

  1. A shell/bomb found its way into a magazine, causing either a direct explosion or a chain reaction of explosions that destroyed the ship.
  2. Hull damage - typically caused by torpedoes, though there were rare instances of dreadnoughts flooding out simply from heavy damage (see SMS Lutzow) - leading to uncontrolled water intake and the ship either becoming unsailable (stern rising out of the water, etc.), or rolling over and taking the plunge. 
  3. Battle damage attrition left the vessel an unfightable, floating wreck (see Bismarck). 

 

Otherwise, a hit was a hit. It could damage personnel particularly grievously (a shell explodes in a med bay or some-such), materiel (it takes out a turret, causes the helm to jam, etc.), or explode in a rather non-vital area. It always represented damage, but unless it was the shot from the golden gun, it didn't cause the vessel to suddenly lose half its fighting potential. In fact, citadel hits are really just a symptom of an overall disease - the desire to assign RPG-style 'health pools' to a boat, in much the same way a wizard might have a finite amount of mana, or a rogue a certain amount of HP that can be expended before he dies.

 

Rather, I would propose that ships in WoWs should suffer a gradually-unfolding level of modules damage far exceeding present mechanics, where (if not main turret, then secondary batteries) damage sustained erodes their fighting value and causes (in some cases) flooding, prompting the warship to heel, ride lower in the water, or ultimately capsize. The entire idea of "health" for an inanimate object is sheer silliness. 

 

Do you know what I'm about to say? I do hope so, because I'd be shocked if you haven't yet considered this. 

 

It's a game.

WG sacrificed historicity and authenticity for the sake of playability, just as seen in WoT. Not everyone is into more realistic gameplay, so WoWs tries to appeal to as many people as possible. I don't doubt that there are more realistic representations of warship combat out there, and I'm sure there will be more in the future.

However, for now, the current system suits WoWs just fine.   

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[KTKM]
Beta Testers
82 posts
7,583 battles

Great ideas.......most of which make me want to see some kind of 'Sandbox' mode implemented in WOWs to try these types of things out, just like they do with WoT.

 

Business6 also mentioned the notion of outright removing citadels from the game and reworking damage accumulation in a more linear way, as opposed to the spiky damage that citadel penetrations create.

 

 

That's actually what I was referring to when I cited him as my main inspiration for writing this article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,673
[POP]
Beta Testers
4,735 posts
7,019 battles

The citadel represents a "critical strike" and has its foundations in both WGing looking to introduce a large alpha potential, and a manner with which to punish players for "bad play" (at least within the confines of how WoWs gauges playstyles), as well as a desire by designers to induce/speed up collapses by rendering exposed salients nullified.

 

I personally find the entire citadel concept relatively ludicrous - battleships generally sank (or were rendered hors de combat) via one of three means:

  1. A shell/bomb found its way into a magazine, causing either a direct explosion or a chain reaction of explosions that destroyed the ship.
  2. Hull damage - typically caused by torpedoes, though there were rare instances of dreadnoughts flooding out simply from heavy damage (see SMS Lutzow) - leading to uncontrolled water intake and the ship either becoming unsailable (stern rising out of the water, etc.), or rolling over and taking the plunge. 
  3. Battle damage attrition left the vessel an unfightable, floating wreck (see Bismarck). 

 

Otherwise, a hit was a hit. It could damage personnel particularly grievously (a shell explodes in a med bay or some-such), materiel (it takes out a turret, causes the helm to jam, etc.), or explode in a rather non-vital area. It always represented damage, but unless it was the shot from the golden gun, it didn't cause the vessel to suddenly lose half its fighting potential. In fact, citadel hits are really just a symptom of an overall disease - the desire to assign RPG-style 'health pools' to a boat, in much the same way a wizard might have a finite amount of mana, or a rogue a certain amount of HP that can be expended before he dies.

 

Rather, I would propose that ships in WoWs should suffer a gradually-unfolding level of modules damage far exceeding present mechanics, where (if not main turret, then secondary batteries) damage sustained erodes their fighting value and causes (in some cases) flooding, prompting the warship to heel, ride lower in the water, or ultimately capsize. The entire idea of "health" for an inanimate object is sheer silliness. This would have the secondary effect of dramatically reducing torpedo spam since, as even single torpedoes were often fatal, the idea of a "skill wall" is an anathema to a game built around module attrition.

 

*Edit* I wanted to mention that many other games - including arcade-y titles like the Battlestations Pacific releases - have had damage control systems that were far more complex (and, IMO, more fun) than WoWs by forcing players to make crew choices about whether to fight fires or flooding, make repairs, or man battlestations that far better conceptualized how warships fight and die. 

 

warthunder is exactly like that right?no health pools,just modules.

we can totally see how that worked well for them.

i might be worng

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,097
[KNMSU]
Members
7,086 posts
7,766 battles

 

Do you know what I'm about to say? I do hope so, because I'd be shocked if you haven't yet considered this. 

 

It's a game.

WG sacrificed historicity and authenticity for the sake of playability, just as seen in WoT. Not everyone is into more realistic gameplay, so WoWs tries to appeal to as many people as possible. I don't doubt that there are more realistic representations of warship combat out there, and I'm sure there will be more in the future.

However, for now, the current system suits WoWs just fine.   

 

Uh huh. It's a game that many people leave because it gets boring. And why does it get boring? Because not only are almost all the matches identical (one side has more good shots than the other, a collapse occurs, the game ends), but the potential for it to grow or change in any kind of a meaningful way is almost completely eradicated by the shallow foundations on which it is constructed.

 

I am quite aware that it is a game. But it didn't by any means have to be this game. What we received wasn't the best of all worlds, the best solution conceivable, or even the a good compromise - it was a system that crudely aped tank mechanics in WoT and slapped a terrestrial armored vehicle game onto a nautical shooter. Yes, it is a game. But not a particularly great one.

Edited by IJN_Hyuga
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[KTKM]
Beta Testers
82 posts
7,583 battles

 

warthunder is exactly like that right?no health pools,just modules.

we can totally see how that worked well for them.

i might be worng

Please try not to be so confrontational. I wanted discussion, so unless you have a more constructive counterargument, please leave it be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,673
[POP]
Beta Testers
4,735 posts
7,019 battles

Please try not to be so confrontational. I wanted discussion, so unless you have a more constructive counterargument, please leave it be.

 

oh sorry if i didn't meet your standards.

warthunder is a game that use modules instead of  RPG HP,i stopped playing it because i simply got used to the health pool mechanic,where the "modules" system increase the chance of me getting oneshotted or losing all my crew.

 

like i said,i might be biased or wrong,but applying a module system in a nautical game might work or sink the game even more,it worked well for the  dogfight gameplay of warthunder,not so well for the tank mode i think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,149
[HINON]
Privateers
6,266 posts
3,308 battles

 

Uh huh. It's a game that many people leave because it gets boring. And why does it get boring? Because not only are almost all the matches identical (one side has more good shots than the other, a collapse occurs, the game ends), but the potential for it to grow or change in any kind of a meaningful way is almost completely eradicated by the shallow foundations on which it is constructed.

 

I am quite aware that it is a game. But it didn't by any means have to be this game. What we received wasn't the best of all worlds, the best solution conceivable, or even the a good compromise - it was a system that crudely aped tank mechanics in WoT and slapped a terrestrial armored vehicle game onto a nautical shooter. Yes, it is a game. But not a particularly great one.

 

All things considered, I think it's a fantastic game.

I mean, I enjoy it immensely, and I know I will for a long time to come. I see very few problems with it in it's current iteration, other than a few balance issues involving some ships, and maybe the MM around T5&6.  

I think it's because I don't ever consider how the game could be improved. I just enjoy it as is. I take the meta we've gotten and have fun with it, instead of thinking about what the meta could or "should" be in the future. I operate with the rules, and turn them into my advantages.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[KTKM]
Beta Testers
82 posts
7,583 battles

 

oh sorry if i didn't meet your standards.

warthunder is a game that use modules instead of  RPG HP,i stopped playing it because i simply got used to the health pool mechanic,where the "modules" system increase the chance of me getting oneshotted or losing all my crew.

 

like i said,i might be biased or wrong,but applying a module system in a nautical game might work or sink the game even more,it worked well for the  dogfight gameplay of warthunder,not so well for the tank mode i think.

 

I don't have standards for a public forum for a game. It's WG's place to moderate that sort of stuff. I would, however like to see a little more decorum and tact in the responses here. I'm not saying you are intending to be rude, but you're coming off as rude regardless, and that stifles actual discussion and just leads to back and forth nonsense, which does not other than clutter my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,673
[POP]
Beta Testers
4,735 posts
7,019 battles

 

I don't have standards for a public forum for a game. It's WG's place to moderate that sort of stuff. I would, however like to see a little more decorum and tact in the responses here. I'm not saying you are intending to be rude, but you're coming off as rude regardless, and that stifles actual discussion and just leads to back and forth nonsense, which does not other than clutter my post.

 

well i'm confess i'm a little rude but that's me,this can't be moderated. as long i don't start insulting people,i'm fine.

since it's a public forum i can't measure how much decorum and tact is needed here,so once again,i can't meet such "standards".

from the looks of it the citadel rework discussion is a little saturated in wows,we can discuss it for now but looks like the thread was "hacked" by i'm fine  with the game vs HP pool and the citadel mechanic is pretty mediocre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,795
[SYN]
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
5,697 battles

Or we do what IChase suggested a while back. We're playing a game with compressed gun ranges, but didn't compress the gun stats. Example Iowa. She could fire max range of around 30km or so. In game IIRC she has a range of what, 22km ish? So she is compressed about 70-80% of her max range, but her ballistics act like they were not.

 

This leads to ships having way stronger guns than they actually had and armor is just shy of meaningless.  IChase explains it better,  but I like his suggestion. Compress the gun ballistics. same way we compressed the range.

 

Watch this video folks. This is the actual problem and IChase nails it on the head.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[KTKM]
Beta Testers
82 posts
7,583 battles

Or we do what IChase suggested a while back. We're playing a game with compressed gun ranges, but didn't compress the gun stats. Example Iowa. She could fire max range of around 30km or so. In game IIRC she has a range of what, 22km ish? So she is compressed about 70-80% of her max range, but her ballistics act like they were not.

 

This leads to ships having way stronger guns than they actually had and armor is just shy of meaningless.  IChase explains it better,  but I like his suggestion. Compress the gun ballistics. same way we compressed the range.

 

Watch this video folks. This is the actual problem and IChase nails it on the head.

 

I also like his suggestion. I think that, coupled with my third proposal, this could be a very good change overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,029 posts

Please try not to be so confrontational. I wanted discussion, so unless you have a more constructive counterargument, please leave it be.

 

 

I don't have standards for a public forum for a game. It's WG's place to moderate that sort of stuff. I would, however like to see a little more decorum and tact in the responses here. I'm not saying you are intending to be rude, but you're coming off as rude regardless, and that stifles actual discussion and just leads to back and forth nonsense, which does not other than clutter my post.

 

He made a very good point and really wasn't very rude or confrontational about it.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Privateers
728 posts
9,020 battles

I'm not sure I like the idea of a War Thunder-like health system (no HP, only modules). One of the reasons I never progressed very far in WT and ultimately kept with WoT was because of the shortcomings of that system.

 

Being one-shot by artillery or a multi-citadel hit is frustrating, I agree, but having your main gun, engine, turret, and gunner all somehow knocked out by a single shot, but still being considered "driveable" was far more frustrating IMO. I would honestly prefer to get one shot (or not, depending on my skill Level), than have some random shot suddenly cut my already slow-[edited]BB's speed in half, or lose an entire turret permanently, etc.It's frustrating to no end when RNG screws you over, but with an increased amount of modules to get hit, RNG will be screwing you even more. I'd rather be able to prevent a one-shot from happening, than be exposed to unending module incapacitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[KTKM]
Beta Testers
82 posts
7,583 battles

I'm not sure I like the idea of a War Thunder-like health system (no HP, only modules). One of the reasons I never progressed very far in WT and ultimately kept with WoT was because of the shortcomings of that system.

 

Being one-shot by artillery or a multi-citadel hit is frustrating, I agree, but having your main gun, engine, turret, and gunner all somehow knocked out by a single shot, but still being considered "driveable" was far more frustrating IMO. I would honestly prefer to get one shot (or not, depending on my skill Level), than have some random shot suddenly cut my already slow-[edited]BB's speed in half, or lose an entire turret permanently, etc.It's frustrating to no end when RNG screws you over, but with an increased amount of modules to get hit, RNG will be screwing you even more. I'd rather be able to prevent a one-shot from happening, than be exposed to unending module incapacitations.

 

That is far from what I am proposing. The module damage system is already in game. Every module, turrets, secondaries, etc. all have their own health pools and can already be knocked out while the ship itself remains in action. The system I am proposing is like what you would see in WoT where you can get hit in the tracks and your vehicle moves slower, or your ammo rack gets hit and you reload slower. Essentially, with my proposed new system, a hit to the citadel would either slow the ship's speed, turning, or main or secondary armament reload. No more no less. This is actually more forgiving than the current system where modules can be temporarily knocked out and you either can't move, can't turn, or can't reload until it is repaired. And my proposed new incapacitations wouldn't be indefinite as in WoT, but repaired over time or with Damage Control as they are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,448
[REVY]
Members
8,078 posts
6,118 battles

I think citadels are important for allowing close range engagements to be decisive, if it is removed, the urge for ships to get close evaporates since all ships with torpedoes gain a tremendous edge.  At mid tiers, citadel damage only accounts for a minority of the damage taken, ships are allowed to go broadside or get in close without it being fatal.  But at higher tiers, these giant super ships crumble as fast as a house of cards.  Just watch 10 seconds of this replay, I deal a 55k damage salvo on a Montana 11km away, this super-massive damage I was dealing didn't feel earned at all.  The reason that Montana was broadside was that he was following his teammates.  The first reaction of the forum might be to declare that Montana stupid for going broadside, often times in top tiers matches, you have no choice, unless you want to leave your teammates to die.  These over-exposed citadels high tier battles feel random, as RNG plays a more devastating role, and teamwork is a dangerous activity to engage in.  This is the biggest problem with citadels.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,448
[REVY]
Members
8,078 posts
6,118 battles

For some reason my post got double posted.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,498
Beta Testers
6,868 posts
4,189 battles

 

oh sorry if i didn't meet your standards.

warthunder is a game that use modules instead of  RPG HP,i stopped playing it because i simply got used to the health pool mechanic,where the "modules" system increase the chance of me getting oneshotted or losing all my crew.

 

like i said,i might be biased or wrong,but applying a module system in a nautical game might work or sink the game even more,it worked well for the  dogfight gameplay of warthunder,not so well for the tank mode i think.

 

I'm not sure I like the idea of a War Thunder-like health system (no HP, only modules). One of the reasons I never progressed very far in WT and ultimately kept with WoT was because of the shortcomings of that system.

 

Being one-shot by artillery or a multi-citadel hit is frustrating, I agree, but having your main gun, engine, turret, and gunner all somehow knocked out by a single shot, but still being considered "driveable" was far more frustrating IMO. I would honestly prefer to get one shot (or not, depending on my skill Level), than have some random shot suddenly cut my already slow-[edited]BB's speed in half, or lose an entire turret permanently, etc.It's frustrating to no end when RNG screws you over, but with an increased amount of modules to get hit, RNG will be screwing you even more. I'd rather be able to prevent a one-shot from happening, than be exposed to unending module incapacitations.

 

Short of being an incredibly outclassed ship like the Hood a oneshot is unlikely with a realistic damage model.

 

Even Kirishima and whatever that other junk BB that had the misfortune of wandering in the USN battle line stayed afloat long enough to take some 20 hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,269
[-ARP-]
[-ARP-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,178 posts
4,376 battles

The citadel represents a "critical strike" and has its foundations in both WGing looking to introduce a large alpha potential, and a manner with which to punish players for "bad play" (at least within the confines of how WoWs gauges playstyles), as well as a desire by designers to induce/speed up collapses by rendering exposed salients nullified.

 

I personally find the entire citadel concept relatively ludicrous - battleships generally sank (or were rendered hors de combat) via one of three means:

  1. A shell/bomb found its way into a magazine, causing either a direct explosion or a chain reaction of explosions that destroyed the ship.
  2. Hull damage - typically caused by torpedoes, though there were rare instances of dreadnoughts flooding out simply from heavy damage (see SMS Lutzow) - leading to uncontrolled water intake and the ship either becoming unsailable (stern rising out of the water, etc.), or rolling over and taking the plunge. 
  3. Battle damage attrition left the vessel an unfightable, floating wreck (see Bismarck). 

 

Otherwise, a hit was a hit. It could damage personnel particularly grievously (a shell explodes in a med bay or some-such), materiel (it takes out a turret, causes the helm to jam, etc.), or explode in a rather non-vital area. It always represented damage, but unless it was the shot from the golden gun, it didn't cause the vessel to suddenly lose half its fighting potential. In fact, citadel hits are really just a symptom of an overall disease - the desire to assign RPG-style 'health pools' to a boat, in much the same way a wizard might have a finite amount of mana, or a rogue a certain amount of HP that can be expended before he dies.

 

Rather, I would propose that ships in WoWs should suffer a gradually-unfolding level of modules damage far exceeding present mechanics, where (if not main turret, then secondary batteries) damage sustained erodes their fighting value and causes (in some cases) flooding, prompting the warship to heel, ride lower in the water, slow down, reload more slowly, and ultimately capsize. The entire idea of "health" for an inanimate object is sheer silliness. This would have the secondary effect of dramatically reducing torpedo spam since, as even single torpedoes were often fatal, the idea of a "skill wall" is an anathema to a game built around module attrition.

 

*Edit* I wanted to mention that many other games - including arcade-y titles like the Battlestations Pacific releases - have had damage control systems that were far more complex (and, IMO, more fun) than WoWs by forcing players to make crew choices (about whether to fight fires or flooding, make repairs, or man battlestations) that far better conceptualized how warships fight and die. 

 

A hit to the citadel area of a warship (The vitals) could potentially destroy the ships combat capacity entirely. If a shell or multiple shells exploded in the boiler rooms, one of two things can happen:

The ship's speed is reduced or the ship is left with no propulsion.

 

Also, hits to a ship's magazine area can result in either a magazine detonation or jamming of the turret or removing the ship's capacity to reload it's main-battery for that barbette.

 

This is what the citadel hit represents, a hit to the vitals. Destroying a numerous amount of HP and lowering your combat capability, although I would really like it if the loss of HP also translated physically to the ship's performance. If you're at 24% HP, you're barely holding together by the threads of your nuts and bolts :D

 

~Hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
854
[BOTES]
Members
2,213 posts
8,406 battles

I don't really have a problem with citadels except for random pens where you aren't being punished for poor play. Not a fan of bow/aft citadels at an angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,448
[REVY]
Members
8,078 posts
6,118 battles

whatever that other junk BB that had the misfortune of wandering in the USN

 

Why are you deliberately trying to start of fight?

 

 

A hit to the citadel area of a warship (The vitals) could potentially destroy the ships combat capacity entirely. If a shell or multiple shells exploded in the boiler rooms, one of two things can happen:

The ship's speed is reduced or the ship is left with no propulsion.

 

Also, hits to a ship's magazine area can result in either a magazine detonation or jamming of the turret or removing the ship's capacity to reload it's main-battery for that barbette.

 

This is what the citadel hit represents, a hit to the vitals. Destroying a numerous amount of HP and lowering your combat capability, although I would really like it if the loss of HP also translated physically to the ship's performance. If you're at 24% HP, you're barely holding together by the threads of your nuts and bolts :D

 

~Hunter

 

 

I'd love it if the ship listed when damaged.  Total War had it in their naval battles, and so did Battlestations Pacific.

 

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,550
[EGO]
Members
4,105 posts

Keep in mind realistic gameplay would have weeks or months long repairs to get some systems working again and it would be impossible to sink a Battleship short of the very occasional magazine detonation or a lot of torpedo hits.

 

I am sympathetic to reworking the damage system but  I would try some small tweaks as opposed to reworking the entire system. Making it more simulation like would not necessarily make it more fun. HE damage is probably way too high for DD's and Cruisers. Nerfing Citadel hits would require buffing some German BBs. The German BB's with turtleback have lower rates of fire than they should which is probably a balancing measure. Dispersion and Sigma values are higher than they should be. One thing to keep in mind when making suggestions is how long do you want the games to be. My own suggestions would be lower smoke duration, concealment, fire chance and fire duration. Not dramatically but I think they are a little too good. Concealment is not necessarily a gameplay issue just a logic issue. I just don't see how you hide a Cruiser in the open ocean and I'm not sure how a concealment module or skill would work other than a Romulan cloaking device.

 

From a gameplay perspective my suggestion would be lower citadel damage to 2.5x, lower HE and fire damage a tad, increase accuracy slightly and a small decrease to smoke size and duration. There should also be a an accuracy penalty for relying on secondary spotting. The game is too dependent on smoke right now which I think makes it much more static than citadel hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×